Moron Motorists #3

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 6795
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby g-boaf » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:59 pm

ldrcycles wrote:
g-boaf wrote: I'm always drooling over C63 AMGs.



That's what you should have said. Here in Noosa they all seem to be driven slowly by 90yr olds :lol: . But oh that glorious noise!


I'm over them. Every one around here us driven by a 20-30 year old about as dangerously as possible. When it's not the C63, it's the black Cayenne or Range Rover, or the Panamera Turbo S. I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but you can I hope get a picture for yourself.

I'd have a gunmetal coloured 911S from 1967 instead. Much more classy.

jasonc
Posts: 8446
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby jasonc » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:10 pm

g-boaf wrote:I'd have a gunmetal coloured 911S from 1967 instead. Much more classy.

don't know about gunmetal, what about orange?

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22518
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby il padrone » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:39 pm

Black Auddi. No more needs to be said. Confirmed as the worst tossers on the road - more aggro and arrogant than even a tradie in a white 4WD Hilux tray-top :roll: :evil:
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
InTheWoods
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby InTheWoods » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:53 pm

Hey, I had a ute slow down to let me in when I shoulder checked tonight. Almost killed me with shock :) So they're not all bad, just like us I guess.

Here's some more classic Brisbane driving. The one with the bus trailer and the car that goes over the kerb are eye openers.


User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 6795
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby g-boaf » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:29 am

Some ute drivers / tradies are serious cyclists as well.

User avatar
find_bruce
Posts: 5804
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby find_bruce » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:07 am

g-boaf wrote:Some ute drivers / tradies are serious cyclists as well.

Oi that's enough of that! This is the moron motorists thread, stereotypes are required, regardless of the usual inaccuracies :wink:

The comments by you and Jasonc about the Mercedes AMG C63 reminds me of a great line at the end of The Big Steel - something along the lines of "I like the cars, its the owners I don't like"
Image . . . . . Image

jasonc
Posts: 8446
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby jasonc » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:31 am

One of my pet hates is people putting their hands on the inside of the steering wheel to turn around a corner. They'll get hit from behind one day and end up with a broken wrist.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22518
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:08 am

g-boaf wrote:Some ute drivers / tradies are serious cyclists as well.

Not the ones in the white Hiluxes with toolbox and roll-cage that routinely cut me up close. Or if they are Say What are they doing that for???

Yes it is a stereotype, but one that has been observed by many and even documented by some.

Throughout his ride, he noted that sedan and station wagon drivers tended to go way out of the way to avoid coming close to cyclists hugging the side of the winding, narrow road.P

But he said that drivers of large pickup trucks and SUVs, almost without exception, barreled past without yielding so much as an extra foot of space.

From Jalopnik

The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars.

The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer.

However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars.

Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.

From University of Bath
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

Rhubarb
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Rhubarb » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:40 am

InTheWoods wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:Got honked by a lady who wanted me to share the road by letting her use my lane. Instead I pointed to the other lane she could use, and she wisely decided to share by letting me keep my lane and she used the other one, was a much better type of "sharing". Funny thing is, my lane was a T2, and she was alone AFAICT, so she shouldn't have been in it in the first place. At least she didn't try to kill me.


Wow that was fast. Within 2 hours of contacting my local police station requesting some re-education, they have spoken to the driver (and even given me a qprime number) which is all I wanted :shock: The OIC there has been very good. Sometimes he doesn't give me what I want, because he can't, but that's ok. He's not allowed to go and beat people up on my behalf :lol:


The metaphorical "beating" is all that is required in a lot of cases I think. The cops only need to point out that they were acting illegally and now have documented "form" on the road which in the event of any future incidents could be used to establish a pattern of consistency when sentencing ....

I really believe we'd be a lot better off if the police made more proactive calls to these people, explaining that the cyclist was acting legally and they were acting illegally and dangerously. Father on his way to work, did he really hold you up, do you really believe its worth the death penalty, do you realise what could happen to you if you hit, oh you're sorry are you? You didn't realise that was dangerous and that was a living person riding that bike? Well I won't fine you this time but we have your name and rego on file now so no excuses next time etc etc.

Too often the cops will say, no-one died so I won't bother pursuing. How about making a few calls to change a few attitudes, to hopefully prevent a few deaths.
Last edited by Rhubarb on Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22518
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:53 am

Ultimate motoring moron !!!





The cyclist's full video clip




For deity's sake, it's awide lane; he just needs to drive slowly past. No need to even cross the double lines!

:roll: :roll: :|
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
skull
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby skull » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:14 pm

That's pretty old. The driver was charged.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

User avatar
darkelf921
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby darkelf921 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:35 pm

SMIDSY or just arrogance? Who knows :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeXPNAf8v-U
Image
My YouTube channel http://goo.gl/UlJrkN

User avatar
darkelf921
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby darkelf921 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:38 pm

The same ride. I normally claim the lane before, during and just after roundabouts. I didn't get a chance to with this one.

http://youtu.be/isk12gElozc
Image
My YouTube channel http://goo.gl/UlJrkN

User avatar
skull
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby skull » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:51 pm

darkelf921 wrote:SMIDSY or just arrogance? Who knows :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeXPNAf8v-U


Not sure about that one. I would have slowed down and given way for cars when crossing over that intersection. I can't see any signs saying motorist have to give way there but I also don't know the actual rules for that area.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22518
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:04 pm

If you want drivers from side streets and driveways to give way to you, ride on the road that has priority. Seperated paths very rarely do, in Australia.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

zero
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby zero » Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:17 pm

skull wrote:
darkelf921 wrote:SMIDSY or just arrogance? Who knows :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeXPNAf8v-U


Not sure about that one. I would have slowed down and given way for cars when crossing over that intersection. I can't see any signs saying motorist have to give way there but I also don't know the actual rules for that area.


The car is clearly exiting an RRA, and has to give way to path users. Knowledge of that road rule = pretty much nil amongst motorists, so the path intersection should have had give way signs and dotted lines on both sides of it facing both directions of travel for motorists. The path is set back far enough to make it possible for motorists exiting the main road to giveway without being rear ended (ie the path is technically well placed, and there is room to move it over further if accomodating an even longer vehicle was required regularly).

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22518
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:43 pm

OK, yes. Rule 74 (1) (c) sets it out pretty clearly

74 Giving way when entering a road from a road related area or adjacent land
(1) A driver entering a road from a road related area, or adjacent land, without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line must give way to—
.....(c) any vehicle or pedestrian on any road related area that the driver crosses to enter the road;
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

human909
Posts: 7134
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby human909 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:59 pm

No matter what the law says it would be foolish to approach that intersection expecting traffic to give way.

User avatar
Marto
Posts: 1339
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:08 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Marto » Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:57 pm

Motorist trying -- and repeatedly failing -- to flee after his vehicle strikes a Chicago taxi.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/Video-Captures-Hit-and-Run-Gone-Wrong-in-Chicago-230871621.html

Image

arkle
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Bridgewater, SA

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby arkle » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:07 am

Marto wrote:Motorist trying -- and repeatedly failing -- to flee after his vehicle strikes a Chicago taxi.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/Video-Captures-Hit-and-Run-Gone-Wrong-in-Chicago-230871621.html



It looks like Alexian Lien is at it again.

arkle
http://www.facebook.com/SteveHargreavesArtwork
instagram: @stevehargreavesartwork

wellington_street
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby wellington_street » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:39 am

darkelf921 wrote:The same ride. I normally claim the lane before, during and just after roundabouts. I didn't get a chance to with this one.

http://youtu.be/isk12gElozc


You are required to give way when crossing from the shoulder into the traffic lane, so if there was an incident you would have been at fault.

That said, the sensible thing to do would have been for the car to back off and let you merge but he isn't legally required to (other than so far as to avoid a crash).

wellington_street
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby wellington_street » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:42 am

il padrone wrote:OK, yes. Rule 74 (1) (c) sets it out pretty clearly

74 Giving way when entering a road from a road related area or adjacent land
(1) A driver entering a road from a road related area, or adjacent land, without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line must give way to—
.....(c) any vehicle or pedestrian on any road related area that the driver crosses to enter the road;


It's a legal grey area (see some previous posts from citywomble in particular) as even though the driveway appears to lead to a car park, it is constructed as a road crossing not a driveway crossing. Certainly it is a grey enough area for drive behaviour and that's more important than what is technically correct under the road rules.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22518
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:51 am

wellington_street wrote:
il padrone wrote:OK, yes. Rule 74 (1) (c) sets it out pretty clearly

74 Giving way when entering a road from a road related area or adjacent land
(1) A driver entering a road from a road related area, or adjacent land, without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line must give way to—
.....(c) any vehicle or pedestrian on any road related area that the driver crosses to enter the road;


It's a legal grey area (see some previous posts from citywomble in particular) as even though the driveway appears to lead to a car park, it is constructed as a road crossing not a driveway crossing. Certainly it is a grey enough area for drive behaviour and that's more important than what is technically correct under the road rules.

Rule 74 says nothing at all about driveways. It is simply road-related areas that are identified. These include a variety of areas, but most notably:
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;


So I don't see it as any sort of legal grey area, just a grey area in the coddled brains of many motorists.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 4461
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Ross » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:42 am

Black Hilux ute today thought it would be funny to drive up behind me blasting his horn - at least I think that's what it was, sounded more like a squeaky [email protected] - and then swerve at me for no reason as I was riding along in the on-road bike lane. It was a dual carrigeway road, 6am with only one other vehicle on the road (another car about 100m behind the Hilux ute), I wasn't holding traffic up and had my lights on. The other vehicle managed to drive past without the horn or swerving, why couldn't you Mr Hilux? Let me answer that for you. Because you are a moron.

wellington_street
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby wellington_street » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:43 pm

il padrone wrote:
wellington_street wrote:It's a legal grey area (see some previous posts from citywomble in particular) as even though the driveway appears to lead to a car park, it is constructed as a road crossing not a driveway crossing. Certainly it is a grey enough area for drive behaviour and that's more important than what is technically correct under the road rules.

Rule 74 says nothing at all about driveways. It is simply road-related areas that are identified. These include a variety of areas, but most notably:
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;


So I don't see it as any sort of legal grey area, just a grey area in the coddled brains of many motorists.


I used the term driveway as a synonym of "road related area" - swap the words around and same deal.

The actual crossing point is constructed as a road crossing, not as a "road related area" crossing. I don't think it is unreasonable for motorists to be confused over who has priority at the crossing because the roads authority has constructed it to make it appear to be a road crossing.

If the path pavement was continuous across the crossing, or the crossing was raised at path level, it would be a different story as it would be pretty clear that the path has priority* at this crossing.

The legal grey area comes from whether a reasonable person would be expected to understand that what is designed, constructed and appears as a road crossing is actually a driveway.

* Not always the case though as some retarded Local Governments (e.g. Subiaco) love to put in raised crossings that aren't actually zebra crossings and confused the hell out of everyone

Return to “General discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users